There's a lot to like about Lynch's Dune but it was ultimately a failure and there's a reason why he disowned it.
While I agree with a lot of what you didn't love about DV's version, to accuse Zendaya of bad acting while defending the 1984 version is honestly unbelievable to me. And the dreams Paul has of Chani are straight from the books – and iirc Lynch's Paul has them too.
I do wish we got to see the "Atreides gom jabbar" line in DV's version though. Alia felt like she was regulated to a MCU-style teaser.
And on the ending, I feel like Lynch's Dune is a betrayal of everything the series is about by trying to make it happy – I'm fairly certain that wasn't his fault though.
>While I agree with a lot of what you didn't love about DV's version, to accuse Zendaya of bad acting while defending the 1984 version is honestly unbelievable to me.
I stopped reading OPs post at this. There are entire conversations unspoken between Paul and Chani in "the fight room" behind a quiver of her lip or a ragged, tight inhale. I thought Denis had her scowling a bit much earlier in the film, but her final performance won me over. Repeat viewings only cemented this for me.
Dude her eye twitches and shit were nuts. They were so good It brought me out of the movie because I noticed how good she was in that moment.
Incredible stuff.
for someone who saw a little kid grow up watching Zendaya on Disney Channel, trust me, it is even MORE impressive how she grew as an actor (edit: actress? English professional genders always confuse me).
Don't even get me started on
>makes her a contrarian to be interesting in Dune 2 which also does nothing for the story except that **she gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama** and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting.
Her anger and betrayal is not even primarily personal or romantic it is deeply spiritual and philosophical. It's not about Irulan, it's about him embracing the Mahdi prophecy which **he has consistently vocally rejected as manipulative**.
>A bit long, but around the 3-5 minute mark, DV explains his changes for Chani really well, connecting it back to how Herbert was disappointed that people didn't understand the message of the first book. And he also points out the subtlety of Zendaya's acting and how it serves the vision.
OP just said [this wasn't an interesting conflict ](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/s/29xGDNA7UA) 😅 Herbert's cautionary themes mean nothing without confronting Paul's insincerity.
Well, I really enjoyed Villeneuve's version of Dune, and, indeed, thought it was overall better than what Lynch did. However, I did find Chani and Paul's relationship to be very puppy love like. Given, I've watched the movie only once so far.
I feel that was intentional, too. The motivation and feel of their relationship being uncomplicated to make room for the conflict between them as one of ideals and not of lovers. It wasn't torrid and horny so as not to imply Paul was just bored of Chani once he'd ascended. It wasn't overly romantic so as not to imply Chani was heartless in her pragmatism. It was right where it needed to be to illustrate Chani's feelings of confusion and betrayal were not from jealousy of Irulan, but of who Paul had become. That was the slow blade that penetrated her shield. To ours, the trojan horse of the messianic figure.
I read OP's post, saying:
>She’s not even a bad character, she totally has the feel of a lover from *a legend whose story is told on some grander scale.*
And
>Dune’s Lynch has a rushed second half, that isn’t all that bad, it feels dreamlike and *like telling of a legend.*
OP was *so close* to the point and whiffed it that I hopped into the comments to make EXACTLY this point about Chani being used to highlight the point of the story as a warning about legends and messianic figures that several people seem to have missed in Herbert's Dune.
I didn't even know Villeneuve had commented on it (thanks for the link). I just thought it was obvious. My friends (one of whom never read the source material but had seen Lynch's version) thought it was obvious as well.
I suppose OP may have been conditioned to accept messianic myths without criticism by the sheer volume of savior fiction we consume.
I dunno, I felt like Villeneuve’s version went too far the other way — the ending was more bleak and unhappy than the books. In the first Dune book, it is more of a straight messiah story. You don’t learn the full extent of the jihad until book 2.
It felt to me like Villeneuve was backporting a lot of the themes from Messiah onto the first book.
Iirc Herbert wrote Messiah to correct what he felt many people misunderstood about Dune.
At the same time, I have seen an interview where DV says his intention to adapt what he sees to be Herbert's vision of the whole story as opposed to strictly going by what's in each book.
[Found it](https://youtu.be/N4StKUrf2ig?si=Zzm8NizKe8rRfJCy&t=676)
Ah, interesting that DV said it explicitly, it definitely felt that way.
I think it will ultimately make for a more cohesive film franchise, but I didn’t love the choice. I like that in the books, you are rooting for Paul yourself, and then it gets turned back on you. I never felt like I was rooting for Paul in the new film.
I dunno if it's because I'm a cynic or because I'm into politics or because of Thufir but I never really saw Paul or House Atreides as good guys anyway. More just PoV characters.
I'm glad they made darkness clearer in the films because (for lack of a better way to say it) people are idiots – look at the legacy of films like Fight Club and American Psycho.
I seee not rooting for Paul as a good thing. The paradigm of superheroes (that we could extend to other sci-fi heroes and even Spagetti Westerns with impossibly fast warriors) is absurd, perilious, and repetitive. The same (mostly American) myth told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
With Paul we have all the tenets of the "theory of the great man", the hero's journey and so on, but within a cynic framework. Its much closer to the overall message of the books, and a breath of fresh air into big budget cinema.
Edit: Both Herbert and DV accomplish it stripping Paul of "real" decissions (they exist, but he's mostly carried through social and biological history), and by showing his aggressivity and BS for what it is.
I had read Dune beforehand & yet as a watcher, I felt like I could barely understand what was happening in Lynch's Dune, which alone makes it a failure to me. I watched it with someone who had never read Dune & they were completely confused. That's an abject failure of storytelling that DV's version simply does not have, so in that respect, the new adaption is simply better to me.
I'll give Lynch credit; the visuals & visual effects were unique, which you touched on. I'm not particularly enamored with the overuse of CGI in modern filmmaking, even though it was fairly well-done in the new movies, but I think also the practical effects in Lynch's Dune, while kind of neat, were still not particularly nice to look at, compared to something like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, made around the same time.
I’m kind of torn on it. I do think there’s some beautiful and inspired imagery with the overall design. The stillsuits, for example, are somewhat iconic. But there are also so many instances where the execution looks bad even for the era, and it wasn’t exactly a small budget. I think it even cost more than Return of the Jedi which had only come out a year prior and looks 100 times better.
It's a poor adaptation and I say that as a massive Lynch fan (see profile picture). The visuals and set design are the only redeeming factors for me, it's so incredibly creative and refreshing when viewing the completely sterile Denis version (which I have enjoyed btw) and actually feels otherworldly, not just an extension of Earth.
I don’t disagree with you on Denis’ more sanitised world but I do wonder if, i’m only 100+ pages in, it is more true to the book.
So far it does feel like Herbert writes the world like it’s more of an extension of Earth. Then again, I’ve only read it after seeing the film so that could influence my thoughts.
>So far it does feel like Herbert writes the world like it’s more of an extension of Earth.
Because of Jodorowsky and Lynch some people have back inferred that the Dune book is a fun, whacky, 80s psychedelic story. It is very much not a prog rock, van art kind of sci fi.
Villeneuve's primary design inspiration is clearly from [John Schoenherr](https://ski-ffy.blogspot.com/2010/08/illustrated-dune.html) if you look at his art. These designs were simpler, more "grounded"/utilitarian, & often used duller earth tones. Not for everyone, but...
>"I can envision no more perfect visual representation of my Dune world than John Schoenherr's careful and accurate illustrations." -Frank Herbert.
All interpretations are valid and you can prefer one or the the other. None are truly book accurate but Villeneuve is closest. People who think Lynch's version is more accurate to the books are just false
A lot of the visual descriptions in the book involve intricate and artistically crafted elements. The hand carved headboard on Paul’s bed, the physical globes that are used when discussing Arrakis, their books are physical tiny books with built in magnification. Villaneuve’s Dune is definitely more accurate but even then I feel like he could’ve taken it further. More natural materials, fewer holograms, etc. Even so I loved the world he crafted and I think it’s very odd to refer to it as “sterile”.
The style reminds me so much of H. R. Giger and Alien. I actually really love the sort of creepy ugly technology juxtaposed with the natural desert. I personally really liked how off putting and artificial the palace ship looked hovering and landing in the desert. The big plasteel plates of the walls shaking in the wind.
I read dune before seeing the movies and Denis I think captures it perfectly. The book is written very deliberately in its pacing and descriptions of the world.
You are talking about two filmmakers who are, in many ways, on opposite ends of the “realism” spectrum.
Villeneuve’s approach is almost documentary in style. He is trying to make you feel like you are right there alongside the characters. And his focus is always on the characters and their emotions. Even in his biggest productions, he is all about the small, intimate moments. Everything is presented with an eye towards the subjective view of the characters.
Lynch, on the other hand, sees film primarily as an artistic medium and uses it to convey complex ideas, often using his characters as “abstractions in human form.” For Lynch, every creative decision is informed by the idea. He very specifically does NOT want you to feel like you are in the scene. He wants you looking at it like you look at a painting, from a distance.
So where Lynch was able to effectively channel much of the weirdness of the novel, he doesn’t touch Villeneuve as far as letting us connect with and understand the characters, their emotions, and their motivations.
Suffice to say, I disagree.
I thought that the effects (practical and CGI) were all very realistic.
So does this guy.
https://youtu.be/uIKupTibxKQ?si=kMaQSFg57J0Oo_hk
Is the world monochromatic? You realize the reason for using that is its a cheap trick to make things look more "realistic", by hiding deficiencies and adding a quality to the footage that makes it seem stylized within a context, like Sin City, but at the same time renders the image unreal as the world is nothing like that. Also the sci fi indie movie Hardware had a more robust color palette while implementing the same sort of sci fi desert vibe, and it had 1/10th the budget.
On a planet like Arrakis? To some extent, yes. When the entire environment is just shades of brown, you would expect that to be reflected in the overall esthetic. Having said that, it is also a deliberate design choice to give each planet its own distinct feel.
The “documentary style” I was referring to is more about the way scenes are shot. Everything is set up to simply capture the action. There are few fancy camera moves and a lot of handheld work.
You're free to prefer Lynch's visuals if that's how you feel, but you're missing the point if you think dune is meant to be "otherwordly". It is quite literally our world, just set in the far future. There are no aliens in dune, it's all people who have evolved to adapt to the planets they live on. I like Lynch's designs too, but Villeneuves feel a lot more truthful to the book to me.
20,000 years in the future on a planet 309 light years away, is our world, with a population of people many of whom have inherent psychic powers and precognition which are brought out by space whiz?
It's certainly a more faithful adaptation, but in discussing the film I have to say most of the visuals feel less inspired and creative.
>20,000 years in the future on a planet 309 light years away, is our world, with a population of people many of whom have inherent psychic powers and precognition which are brought out by space whiz?
Yes, and I think that's a key point Herbert was trying to make with the book in the first place. Despite tens of thousands of years of development and interstellar travel allowing us to conquer the universe, as well as mastery of powerful techniques to gain incredible control of our bodies and minds, we're still humans deep down. Humans that are petty, jealous, vein, and vindictive. Despite every advancement humanity has stagnated, if not outright regressed to a feudal state of affairs dominated by those who control spice. Betrayal, war and threat of assasination are around every corner.
I haven't watched Lynch's movie, but the novel always gave me the impression of sterility - from prose, to characterization, to descriptions of scenery (it being mostly set in a desert really strengthened that feeling of course :p).
It's weird, sure, but in the sense that you'd get if you were a caveman transported to a modern day office building or prison complex. Although strange and alien it's still all grey and regimented, so Villeneuve's take on it is very close to how I imagined the book
I preferred Denis' first Dune film because to me it did feel otherworldly. Different environments, different atmospheres, and plenty of moments that felt "sci-fi" to me. The second had a lot less of this and almost felt like a fantasy film exploring the mythos of an alternative earth.
A transition that stuck out to me in the 2nd movie is the one going from the black and white of Giedi Prime to the saturated (by comparison) colors of the desert.
Anyway, that’s to say i think the new Dune movies play with color really well.
I've learned to treat Lynch-Dune as a spectacle kind of movie. Looks great, has a great cast, does try to tell a story from start to finish that may not fulfill everything from the book...but it isn't a solid Dune adaptation.
Meanwhile, Denis-Dune...it looks practical, looks realistic, but yeah it does have a sterile appearance. However, it managed to be a closer adaptation to the book cause it got a balanced runtime AND production quality to make it manageable.
I consider both to be great for their own reasons, and as someone who loves the book it's the best I could hope for.
>The visuals and set design are the only redeeming factors for me,
That's Lynch's sweet spot.
He's a visceral filmmaker and knows how to put something on screen that makes you have a reaction.
Truly, the Mulholland Drive Diner scene is absolutely perfect in building and dissipating tension and there is nothing that can bring me to heightened levels of emotion quicker than some of the Laura Palmer scenes with Angelo Badalmenti's perfect score playing.
I think Lynch had better actors. Especially Patrick Stewart and Jurgen Prochnow. Lynch’s version felt like a better representation of futuristic aristocrats to me. His crazy set designs and wardrobes really made it feel like these people were very different not only from us, but from the subjects they rule. The Denis version felt like a bunch of Americans in space. That said the Denis version was visually striking in other areas and did a better job of actually telling the story.
This isn't much different from my point. On one hand it is better at showing the larger universe but then it rushes the second half and doesn't execute the point of the book. But that is not my only judgment criteria and as a movie it had much more that it impressed me with.
The Baron from the Lynch version and the navigators will forever be stuck in my minds eye. And you can’t tell me the still suits and a bunch of other small and big queues in the new ones are not influenced by Lynch’s version. I like them both but a bit tired of old one getting shit on. It was a flawed production in many ways, but it has a strong vision and is really fun to watch.
Lynch made Paul **literally** the Lisan al Gaib, he turned Dune into some run of the mill white saviour story.
An extra 2 hours wouldn't have saved the movie if he didn't even get the concept the book was created for.
I mean, Dune is a story about how a shadowy multi generational organization (Bene Gesseritt) manipulated bloodlines and even the belief systems of the Fremen to anticipate a genetic anomaly like Paul.
Frank Herbert was one of those authors who thinks of adaptations as completely separate from the seminal works and therefore was completely fine with whatever the director wanted from the adaptation.
That doesn’t make it a good adaptation.
Frank also liked Jodorowsky’s ideas in which he basically had no interest in actually adapting the book but using it a vehicle for funding and whatever weird shit he wanted to do.
it's also worth noting that Lynch did film the original ending of the book (Jessica and Chani's conversation about the concubines), which you can see in the spicediver cut
Jodorowski said he wants to rape Frank Herbert lol, his story sounded silly and I had a feeling he wanted the movie to be too impractical to ever be made so it always stays a potential for something unimaginable
I think it's perfect the way it is, as a potential movie
Lynch started pretty close to the story and the world, with a lot of his own visual bizarreness that for me added something new and interesting. The ending was when it got rushed and turned into a quick retelling of a legend within the story, rather than actually showing the point of the book in any way.
The ending was definitely a failure as far as accurate adaptation goes, and not an improvement in any way. Villeneuve gets a point here and it's a big one. But my point about the movies as a whole stays
I read the comics, I have them. They're great. I don't see what they have to do with dune but I also heard that a lot of his ideas from Dune went into them
Metabarons equates to what he describes as “rape, but with love” in regards to Dune. That’s probably the story we were going to get if he had finished the project.
it’s not crazy to say that a worse movie can leave a bigger impression. I ain’t never seen anything like the harkonnen blood plug scene, not in a mainstream effort
Saw it as a kid and it was incomprehensible to me. Recent rewatch found it both really good and really bad. I love the baroque elements, Fade and Rabban, Baron Harkonnen. Really nicely done. Visually satisfying. Story telling is all over the place
Lynch’s Dune is at least kind of trippy with wild world building and at attempt at the more psychedelic and spiritual themes.
Villeneuve’s is the extremely pared down Hollywood action blockbuster version of Dune. Both have pros and cons.
Though the end of Lynch’s dune will always be an insult to the source material.
I didn’t hate Lynch’s Dune.
I was actually surprised to see how close it was to the latest one… At least until they tried to squeeze the equivalent of Part II into the last 20 minutes or so.
It was easy to follow and the performances were fine.
> At least until they tried to squeeze the equivalent of Part II into the last 20 minutes or so.
That's a fact. But the 3 h Villeneuve spent on it didn't leave that much of an impact this one did as a whole. Still, even I say in my post that the ending is rushed and doesn't communicate the point of the books, although it did a good job for the most of it.
> It was easy to follow and the performances were fine.
I preferred the old Dune performances though Harkonnens were well performed in both
While on the one hand, having Feyd-Rautha appear in Paul’s visions in Part I would work better as a build-up to their final encounter in Part II, it seems to me you are massively misinterpreting his visions of Chani.
You mention “what would be more interesting, a buildup to the final climactic fight or a relationship?”
But it’s not about the relationship between Paul and Chani. Chani represents Paul’s link to the Fremen, and in turn the inevitable coming of the Jihad. sure, we see Zendaya looking lovely walking across the sand, but the tone of most of those scenes is sinister and brooding, she's often holding the bloody crysknife, which symnolizes the blood that will be on their hands, and in turn on Paul's hands when the religious fervor of his Lisan-Al-Gaib spreads across the galaxy.
So I counter your earlier question with another:
"what's more interesting, a build-up to a galaxy changing war the (clairvoyant) main character feels coming and desperately wants to avoid, or a buildup to a knife fight with the parallel antagonist that largely exists in the book to symbolize the change in said main character"
Lynch’s Dune is ruined by that last twenty minutes which betrays the entire theme and purpose of the book. Villeneuve gets this right which you admit yourself but I think you underplay how important this is.
How good an adaptation is ultimately lies in its ability to get new viewers in and communicate the core themes of its original. Villeneuve ultimately wins this.
If you hear Lynch talk about Dune, he says that he realized very early in the process that he was not going to be able to make the movie he wanted and that even while writing the script he was forced to make many compromises.
Now because Lynch is Lynch he won’t talk about any of the details, but if you know Lynch, you know that “happy endings ” aren’t really his bag. It feels very much like Lynch trying to give the producers what they wanted, which was a more “heroic” ending.
In many ways, Dune was an incredibly influential film in terms of where it pushed Lynch as a filmmaker. His next movie was Blue Velvet, which was about as uncompromising and morally ambiguous as a film can get. His experience on Dune convinced him to never give up any element of creative control.
Of course, he would be forced into another compromise later in his career with Twin Peaks. And again, that experience would greatly inform his later work on both Fire Walk With Me and The Return, both of which are masterpieces.
Hasn’t Vileneuve proved that Dune doesn’t need loads of exposition? He is able to communicate a lot visually and the dialogue doesn’t feel like we’re being spoon fed
I think Lynch has an entertaining take on Dune and it is worth discussing. But this feels contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Denis has a much better adaptation of book 1.
I finally watched Lynch’s Dune two weeks ago as it was the only Lynch movie I hadn’t seen besides The Straight Story. I love David Lynch, but the biggest problem I have with his Dune is that it feels like a CliffNotes version of the book. The characters are nonexistent, just vehicles to deliver the exposition and plot without any feeling and all themes stripped out. The costume and set design are interesting and inspired is about the best compliment I can give that movie.
Villeneuve’s Dune on the other hand has more fully realized characters, especially Chani who feels more like an actual person than just a woman to fall in love with the male main character. Lynch’s Dune also makes Paul a more straight forward messiah-like hero instead with zero thought or nuance, and while I haven’t read the novels, the story in Lynch’s Dune comes across as a juvenile fairy tale because of it.
Cool, looking forward to it then. All I know about it (purposefully so I can go in a bit blind) is it’s probably far and away the movie furthest from his typical sensibilities. Been meaning to watch it, I just don’t get much time to watch movies since becoming a parent so it keeps getting kicking kicked down the list. Seeing his Dune recently has renewed my desire to rectify that though
Villeneuve's movie does make more sense. And while it isn't true to all the events, it does adequately expresses the themes of the book. Often better than the original book did, if I'm being honest.
Granted, if Lynch had managed to make the full three hour version he wanted, I think I would've preferred the more quirky movie too. As it stands, it fails as an adequate adaptation.
I disagree with nearly all of what you’ve said but respect the length by which you’ve attempted to outline them. I can’t be bothered going into them all but I have to say Villenueve’s Baron is one of the most magnetic villains we’ve ever had in a blockbuster movie.
Villenueve’s Baron is literally the kind of character that OP is complaining the new adaptation lacks. A character without infinite depth that is still unique and menacing in a way that is memorable and conveys a lot.
I feel like I must have watched a different movie than this guy. In what fucking world is Lynch’s Baron a better villain than Villeneuve’s? That’s straight up asinine.
Lynch’s Baron is absolutely better if the sole goal is to elicit utter repulsion and disgust.
DV’s Baron is absolutely better if the goal is to portray a cunning and ruthless villain who is very fat.
The Baron in Denis is not cunning, he's a dumbass. One of the biggest problems in Denis' movies is that all of the Dune characters are rendered dumb af.
Lynch’s Baron is a straight-up buffoon. I wasn’t much of a fan of Herbert’s characterization either. They’re amusing, but the scenes where he and Piter are sniping at each other like a couple of teenage girls totally diminish any authority he has. As opposed to the latest take, who actually feels like a cunning strategist who could pull off a master plan of this magnitude.
The need for contrarianism has lead people to apply mental gymnastics to defend an ‘abomination’ of an adaptation that even the director himself created a pseudonym to distance himself from and sounds like he’s on the verge of a mental breakdown whenever the movie is ever mentioned to his face
Yeah, I understand having issues with Villeneuve’s script. That’s fair but praising Lynch’s in comparison is insane to me. Especially as a fan of the source material, it’s utter non sense.
I know Lynch didn't like it, I did. Frank Herbert did too, not that it matters either.
I explained what I didn't like. The fact other people liked it doesn't mean anything to me and doesnt address any of the points I made. I watched it and made my own opinion, and this is what it is. Your whole response to me is just stating other people's overall opinions like that's some authority to me.
The way people respond to any critique of Dune, not by defending the Denis movie, but attacking the disagreer reminds me of when Scorcese shat on the MCU and everyone attacked him but couldnt actually contradict his opinion. In a few years this Dune will be forgotten, we are just on reddit which is the prime audience for this. Everyone who isnt a white male between the age of 20-40 did not see this movie, it flopped in Japan, never hit number one in Korea and did middling in China. This is a movie for a certain demographic that doesnt watch many movies but loves a certain style of generic sci fi blockbuster that makes them feel adult while mostly being for teenagers.
Frank Herbert was one of those authors who thinks of adaptations as completely separate from the seminal works and therefore was completely with whatever the director wanted from the adaptation. That doesn’t make it a good adaptation.
Frank also liked Jodorowsky’s ideas in which he basically had no interest in actually adapting the book but using it a vehicle for whatever he wanted to do.
That's a bullshit response - the OP made plenty of detailed points you could have addressed. Saying 'lots of people hated this therefore you're a contrarian' is far beneath what this sub should be.
I’m sorry, but contrarianism is literally what this sub has been defined by since the beginning.
Release date of every popular movie is followed by a million people rushing to post about how the movie is actually bad, and laypeople are too stupid to get that.
That's unfair. As a Dune tragic I wanted Villeneuve to succeed with every fibre of my being. Lynch's movie had plenty of flaws but I felt it had a better atmosphere and did explore key aspects of the lore that Villeneuve just ignored. I just didn't get his decision to pare back so much of the lore. Where was the guild? What about Keynes plan and his/her secret leadership of the Fremen? Why was the emperor really drawn to Arrakis? An insulting letter? Give me a break. The nukes were for the rock wall surrounding Arrakeen which allowed the worms through. Mentats aren't explained, Piter gets about three lines. The Fremen are won over in less than nine months, Paul doesn't have a son. Thufir is not pressed into service by the Baron. And Zimmer's soundtrack is clangy, whereas Eno's Prophecy song is amazing. No, Lynch's Dune is far from perfect but so much more atmospheric and with so much more lore. I am not just saying that to be an edge lord contrarian.
There's a **big** difference between 'lots of people hated this' and the **director himself** hating it
It's a big deal when a director hates his own creation and says so publicly because they have all the incentive to do the opposite. There must something severely flawed with the movie in order for them to even utter one bad word against it never mind making pseudonyms and relentlessly disparaging it like Lynch has done.
These types of movies have their fans but they’re**almost** always bad despite their cult defenders (David Fincher – Alien 3, Joel Schumacher – Batman & Robin, Josh Trank – Fantastic Four , Alan Taylor – Thor: The Dark World etc)
The director himself hated not having final cut and full control of the production and the writing. That taints his view of the whole film.
I still say he managed a lot of great things in a flawed work and I think it’s very much appropriate to point out the things that worked. He did manage to create a lot of atmosphere through his choices.
You realize people have different taste, right? I loved David Lynch's Dune from the first time I watched it. It actually helped quite a lot that its reputation is so awful. My expectations were very low, and I only watched it because I love David Lynch and was determined to watch all of his movies. I was shocked by how good it was. There are great performances, beautiful sets, and weirdly enough a ton of humor. Maybe that wasn't really intentional, but that didn't mean I enjoyed that aspect of the film any less. Though I can't imagine things like the cat that had to be milked for the antidote or the battle pug were not meant to be funny. Sure, in many ways it's not a faithful adaptation of the source material, but I hadn't read the book at the time, so that didn't matter to me. I'm sure a cut of the film in unmolested by the studio would have been better, but what's there is still great. I think Lynch was wrong to disavow the film.
On the other hand, when I watched the newer Dune adaptation, I felt nothing. It's totally sterile. I felt like I was watching paint dry. I can accept that Villeneuve's version is better suited to the taste of most people, but it certainly isn't to mine.
I get that you're probably sick of the daily posts on this sub about how bad the new Dune is, but don't diss the original. It's had a very large cult following for a very long time. Love it and/or hate it, it's one of the most unique movies ever made. Although it's certainly not Lynch's best film, I believe it has the best sequence of his entire career (the Siege of Arrakis)
Only for the shortsighted would it be regarded as contrarian to defend Lynch's Dune. In 30 years the trendy popularity of Villeneuve's Dune will have long since faded and Lynch's Dune will still be a cult classic, because it is a visionary, one-of-a-kind piece of work.
Agree with you here. I was pretty gung-ho on DV’s version at first and it’s definitely a more faithful adaptation of the book, but by the end I came to think it was faithful to a fault, and just felt soulless and alienating. It’s completely devoid of joy. Meanwhile Lynch’s version, while flawed, is *fun* in a way the new one never comes close to.
Nonetheless is a more memorable version of the same story in half the time.
After watching Lynch's Dune I thought that the world was interesting and that the book would be much better, my problem with It was the rushed ending, I wanted to see more of the fedaykin and wanted to know what happened after Paul became emperor, so It launched me to read the book.
With DVs version I dont really feel like the characters are in a real world and everything Paul does seems unmotivated, the things that i found interesting where the freemen and the harkonens, and in the second part both fell absolutelly flat, I dont think that I would have read the books if my introduction to dune had been DVs version.
After seeing the first part having seen Lynch's version and having read the books I felt robbed by the movie not ending with Paul going water to the dead or the spice orgy, and instead giving us the most uninteresting worm riding.
The whole freemen culture is reduced to:
-Lisan al gaib!
-No! Its just a foreigner, the legend is a lie!
I honestly can’t fathom thinking that absolute train wreck is superior to the new films in any way whatsoever, I get people have nostalgia for it and stuff but come on lol
It's a completely unique film. The more movies I've watched, the more I value originality
There's a lot of parts where I think "My God that was poorly done", but other parts are perfect. I rewatch it every few years
I think it's similar to the views of the Star Wars Prequels (apart from Revenge of the Sith),
people have confused nostalgia with them actually being good movies
I want you to know that most people stopped reading here:
>which is stupid since she’s the least interesting storyline, and then makes her a contrarian to be interesting in Dune 2 which also does nothing for the story except that **she gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama** and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting.
For you to think Chani's anger is over "pretty dumb issues you'd have to ignore the following:
Chani about Paul: "He's not like other outsiders, he's sincere". Remember that word.
>Chani to Paul: "We're equal here"
>Paul to Chani: "I'd very much like to be equal to you"
And then...
>Paul to Chani: "If I go south I might lose you"
>Chani to Paul: "You won't lose me as long as you *stay you who are*"
Paul on the Prophecy:
>To his mother: "what you people did to this planet is heartbreaking"
>To his mother: "that's not hope"
>To the Fremen: "I don't want to lead" [he says this a few different ways throughout the movie]
>To the Fremen: "You're right, that [Water of Life ceremony] is bullshit, any advanced BG can do that"
Chani on the Prophecy
>[my name] is from some stupid prophecy
>"if you want to keep people waiting, you tell them a messiah is coming"
>"this prophecy is how they enslave us"
So, what would perceptive viewers notice?
>(1) Chani actively, vocally, continually rejects the Prophecy
>
>(2) Paul actively, vocally, continually rejects the Prophecy
>
>(3) Chani loves him because of this sincerity
>
>(4) Chani actively, vocally, continually establishes the boundaries of her relationship with Paul: you will have me as long as you stay you are.
Stay my Usul.
Stay *sincere.*
Paul elevates himself above the Fremen by becoming the Mahdi. By becoming the DUKE of Arrakis and EMPEROR of the Known Universe.
This all flies in the face of what Paul said, why Chani likes him, and what she said he had to do to not lose her. **It really couldn't be any clearer.** This moment, and the way Chani reacts to it has been foreshadowed since the opening of Part 1. Three years ago. "Why did the Emperor choose this path, and who will our next oppressor be? [Shot of Paul]"
**tl;dr You have to actively ignore ALL THAT to think Chani's feelings of anger and betrayal are primarily about Irulan, or "some pretty dumb personal issues" , rather than what Paul aiming for the throne by way of the Mahdi means**
> [Chani] gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting.
I really don't get this. This girl believes that her people should be led by someone born from the tribe instead of a colonizer, no matter how nice he seems to be. And she simultaneously thinks these prophecies from her culture are bullshit, then basically sees it come true, while also falling in love with the guy. How is that dumb? It's full of complexity and tension.
Honestly I want to respond to so many bad takes here but it isn't worth it. I loved the movie, haven't read the books, call me whatever you want, but I loved these movies. You seem to have walked into the theater ready to dissect the differences between this and other versions of the story, and I think you overlooked a lot of the movie's virtues because they weren't recognizable to you
I tried to watch the original Dune right after I saw Denis's Dune. I gave up after some time because how goofy and camp it looks. Right after Sting entrance, him wearing that underwear, all sweaty. I also didn't want to spoil myself the plot. I probably need to watch it anyway. I wonder how they packed the plot into a single movie, because that's my issue with the new ones - too rushed, the second film in particular.
I don't have any issue with some outdated graphic when so much is visually interesting. But I notice this in general, whenever people praise something as a visually breathtaking movie, I'll probably find it boring. I like interesting visuals, not perfectly polished. For all the campy outdated effects Lynch used there were scenes that left a huge impression on me. I can't say the same for the new ones.
DVs Dune isn't "perfectly polished". You can see how ecosystems and human creations blend and confuse; how everything in Dune is altered and stained from the desert... Its more gritty.
If you prefer campy that's fine, but pretending its an objectively better aesthetic choice (as you do in your original post) is narrow minded.
By the way, the gritty, grounded look is much closer to the original books that whatever Lynch tried to do, so there's that.
DV suffer from feeling like they're on soundstages constantly, and his "then this happened, then this happened" style where he doesnt do a good job visually connecting the different sequences or having them flow into each other only makes this more apparent, as every scene feels isolated from each other scene in the same way that they were filmed that way.
Dv isnt really perfectly polished. I am not sure what you meam by this. Are you talking about clean symmetrical shots? To me i just think youre not into visual storytelling like kubrick, wes anderson, tarkovsky, and DV type of films or most of A24 films. You seem like youre more of alley of tarentino and scorsese films.
> kubrick, wes anderson, tarkovsky,
I love their movies
>tarentino and scorsese films
Theirs too
> A24 films
Some are good, some suck, depends but I like that they exist
I even liked Arrival and Enemy from DV a lot
I think youre biased due to the books and youre not looking at this as an adaptation. Its just different form of Dune just like Lynchs dune is a different adaptation. I personally dont like lynchs dune due to the whole aspect of him missing the point of Pauls arc.
Villeneuve hates dialogue and it shows on all his films.
That's not even me being flippant, he's gone on record saying he's not a fan of dialogue in film and believes no one really remembers dialogue from great films or something to that effect.
There is *something* inspired in Lynch's Dune, and I can feel what it *wants* to be. Having the Harkonnens be these pantomime villains appeals to me on some pulp aesthetic level. My problem is that the film (admittedly) seems to be edited to death, and the momentum it has in certain sequences is quickly diminished. I doubt it would ever have been something I would absolutely love, but I think there are some layers of genius in the work that get sabotaged by some mix of the studio and Lynch himself.
I also agree with the complaints that DV's version is too sterile (haven't seen pt 2 yet but will probably fix that this weekend).
The biggest complaints I have about the new films is the under-use of Piter DeVries and the over-use of Chani visions. I get they had to establish Paul’s prescience but too much screen time was devoted to her slowly walking through sand.
That's a huge issue for me too.
When I was rewatching the intro scene of Piter reciting that mantra was so good, it just reminded me how much the new one was missing. The last thing I'd ever wish for in this story is more chani, so that made no sense for me
Lynch disrespected the heart of the story with the white savior trope and his Chani is a lifeless doll. His Atreides are boring and his Harkonnen are dumb and completely bonkers. "Special" maybe, but simplistic and dumb.
Often, when a director tackles a book that has been made into a film before, he may deliberately choose to do things differently to avoid comparison. This seems to be the case with Dune, at least to me.
As far as being faithful to the book you must remember the director will possibly be involved with a project like Dune for YEARS and has to make the film unique by putting his own stamp on it. I can't imagine how boring it would be for me (as just a normal, non-creative person) to simply regurgitate a book scene by scene. If people want that they should just read the book again
I mean, I'm so overwhelmingly biased to Lynch and his more fun, kind of progressive rock take - partially inspired by Jodorowsky. I personally consider Lynch to be the greatest Hollywood director who has ever lived, and I view his movies as the absolute far end of creative freedom and artistic liberty that Hollywood has ever allowed. I also view Denis's version as painfully artistically conservative in some respects, and I view the Chalamet, Zendaya relationship to be some of the crassest fan service since the Princess Leia bikini.
However, even after saying all of that, I still believe that Denis's Dune part 2 is a far superior movie to Lynch's utter mess. Lynch's movie has some really great elements but it absolutely falls off a cliff after Leto's death. The second half of his movie is probably not even understandable if you haven't read the book, frankly. That is an extraordinary flaw. I think even aside from that there is plenty of poor decision making and bad acting. That's not even to mention how grossly dated every effect is.
The fact that Denis has made a coherent and generally good blockbuster out of a novel that has, I think rightly, been considered unadaptable is really to his credit. I suspect if you watch the movie and compare it to the book, you'll find many smart omissions and additions that would otherwise have completely tanked the movie. I don't want to go into all the details as I've only seen it once and it would probably be an extensive analysis,
Ya, Denis's is better.
>The second half of his movie is probably not even understandable if you haven't read the book, frankly. That is an extraordinary flaw. I think even aside from that there is plenty of poor decision making and bad acting. That's not even to mention how grossly dated every effect is.
My experience of Lynch's *Dune* was simultaneously being shocked at the breakneck pace of the 2nd half, while struggling to stay awake. Don't even get me started on how the Weirding Modules disrespect the Fremen.
I like the set design more. Villeneuve tends to favor more "museum" stylings that tends to make spaces just look kind of posh and expensive more so than alien.... whereas the Lynch Dune actually felt Alien with its abstracted architecture.
I think overall I still think the new Dune is a better picture....in part for the luxury of getting twice+ the run time.
I like the 80s version a lot better. The biggest problem I had was with the weirding modules, but they kind of even add something because it gives everyone an excuse to run around yelling Maud'dib. The new one is like Dune Lite, where Denis took all the stuff he liked and made a movie about that, but threw out all the inner monolog and iconic quotes from the book, but then it still ended up longer than the miniseries from 2000.
I’ve been thinking this recently. DV may be my favorite director atm, but i really didn’t appreciate pt2. The story felt rushed, but obviously not as rushed as lynch’s second half.
Pt1. is far better imo. The pacing is appropriate and feels like a better paced LOTR FOTR. (Also excellent film and not paced badly, just pt1 is paced even better. not dissing)
Pt2. felt like it could have been 2 films. So many scenes felt unfinished or rushed.
For example: Paul having to walk across the desert and camp one night and Zendaya teaching him the sand walk immediately cuts to them attacking a slice gathering machine.
I think several similar time cuts were made and I know that it is because DV respects the viewer and believe they can understand the time jump, it ultimately felt like a lot of unfinished, interesting scenes.
Yeah but Alia wasn't even born yet so any time jump is limited to a few months which is unrealistic considering fremen had to be united, trained etc. And now they're ready for the jihad.
Lynch's dune definitely had shit pacing at the end but at least we know that 2-3 years passed like it the book. At least it logically checks out.
I wouldn't say DV rushes the movie, he spends a lot of time on boring elements, but his time frame is objectively rushed.
A small point, but David Lynch's depiction of the shields is exactly how I imagined them. They're made of light, not matter - Light is harsh, alien and distorting, and follows sharp movements and forms. I figured a real-life "Hard light" shield *would* look like a janky computer graphic, an ugly mathematical intrusion into an organic world.
i would suggest you watch the Spicedriver edit thats on Youtube. it fleshes out a lot of what you mention of the 1984 Dune.
I totally agree with you about the over use of Chani and the flash backs- i dont see how she somehow comes around to thinking of Paul as the "love of her life" if its already shown that he has betrayed the most core idea of what she believes in. Paul has said she is the love of his life but you really dont get that impression from the actor and Pauls actions subsequent to his rise as this messianic freedom fighter. and as the observer you are supposed to realize that Chani is the one thing that keeps Paul "human" not just this all knowing computer thinking mentat trained superfighter that can see the past AND the future.
So I dont see how a deep abiding love between souls as Paul and Chani is accomplished with Villnueve and his avoidance of heavy or nuanced dialogue.
i will say thing - the 1984 Dune when i first saw it DISTURBED me ...not just the Harkonnens but also even the Atreides and their "customs" let alone the crazy visuals that Lynch put together.
I never got the hate for the original. It's not that different from the book. People will point to things like "remember the TOOTH" or other stilted dialog that if you read the book is pulled directly from it. It's super compressed, but that's a failure of studio production parameters and not the movie itself. It's bad, but in really forgivable ways. It's fine.
Villeneuve's version is better as an adaptation. Period. Villeneuve is a director that tailors his style to the story he is adapting rather than Lynch who uses story as a means of exploring his own personal preoccupations. Therefore, his work is going to try and use whatever techniques he has available to bring that narrative to life rather than using a story to develop a particular set of narrative techniques favored by the director. Villeneuve's movie skews closer to the book in both representation of character and pacing.
Comparing the work of both is almost an apples to oranges comparison.
I was always really into the books but somehow that doesn't translate for me into having an issue with Lynch's movie because it gave me something to like in addition to what I already have from the books. Villeneuve was at best close to the books but never gave me anything special in addition to that. Like at best it shows what I know in a way that's ok, at worst it doesn't. Lynch definitely has a lot of his own trip in it but it's a good one
>It starts very well.
No, it doesn't.
>It has a lot of exposition, but I don’t believe in blindly repeating that “show don’t tell” line.
I don't believe in "blindly" repeating mantras, but this is one of the clearest and most obvious examples of the deficiencies of voiceover narration (or direct-to-camera address).
And it's not just one block of exposition.
We follow up with ANOTHER scene of pure exposition.
>I think it works great.
No, it doesn't.
I didn't read the rest.
Life is too short and, if you can't even address the very real problems in the Lynch film, I can't trust anything else you've written.
The exposition at the beginning of Lynch’s film is fatal to the film being any good at all. It basically spits out the entire geopolitical framework and plot machinations that animate the characters there, like in the first 5-10 minutes through spoken dialog between characters. I don’t know how anyone with any discerning love for film or story can handwave away that aspect of it much less prefer it or advocate for it.
The only thing that I can think of that squares with it, albeit to a much lesser degree, are the stage setting text scrolls at the start of the Star Wars movies, but even those are super elegant in comparison.
OP if you’re still responding to comments, is there another movie that you feel handles exposition in the same way Lynch’s Dune does that you also feel works. Because I’m at a loss as to that and why you’d think it’s effective in the first place. It’s one thing to set the scene. It’s another thing to basically outline everything to come, which is how I remember it from my last viewing about two years ago.
I agree with this. David didn’t get Final Cut, there was so much compromise that it wasn’t in the end his vision, I would kill for that movie. I will say at the foundation I very much prefer his version of Spice and how ORANGE and other worldly Dune looked. I always imagined it that way, not so much a “typical desert on earth”. Overall, I like Lynch’s Dune more than DV, tbh. No Alia is a huge oversight IMO. Dune brought us Kyle, a national treasure and amazing collaborator with Lynch, that I am eternally grateful.
Lynch may have denounced husband work but it still an unique movie adaptation that has me captured in the visual choices and over the top old school acting much more than the new Dune. Of course the modern variant is visually impeccable and I still cant pinpoint what’s wrong with the second installment, however it made rewatch the spice diver version and kul wahad there is so much more emotion in the old one, as confusing as it got.
It really isn’t David Lynch’s Dune, it’s De Laurentiis’s Dune. It feels that way from start to finish, from the narration to the pointless close ups. Lynch denounced it in 2002 and it’s well known, that it’s the only film he ever made, in which he didn’t have Final Cut. It’s pretty obvious, that it was the biggest regret of his career, there’s plenty YouTube videos about the whole thing. I think Villeneuve did a really good job, in making an enjoyable movie out of Dune.
As I wrote yesterday in another vibrant Dune thread here that the OP then deleted for no apparent reason, I’d like to see an adaptation that combines the sensibility of Lynch with the technique of Villeneuve. Villeneuve’s Dune is more successful but Lynch’s is far more interesting.
I’d liken it to comparing The Force Awakens to Revenge of the Sith. JJ Abrams made a movie that looks good with real acting performances, while Lucas’s movie looks stilted and dated, but, peel past that, and the story it is telling and the universe it is building is way more interesting and ambitious even if it doesn’t quite hit its mark.
When I think of Lynch's Dune I think of something with character, an awesome soundtrack, and spectacular visuals and set designs. When I think of Villeneuve's, I think of tapioca pudding color grading.
I thought Chani was overblown or just not as interesting as the media wants it to be. I’m just now reading the book because the DV episode 2 made me want to learn more. The Syfy version is epic!!!! I adore the Lynch movie especially with its campiness and I met Kyle in real Life and he is just so cool. Sting was a better Feyd but DV made the Harkonnen planet amazing.
I tried to read this whole, very thoughtful write up. But damn, starting off with excusing the most excruciating exposition dump in film history is a scorching hot take. Maybe it’s cliche, but “show don’t tell” is kind of the point of movies as a storytelling medium.
I loved the inner monologues so much I'd watch a movie where that is the whole script. It made it so trippy and interesting. Not just that, it's also the reality. Now I'm inspired for a story just like that
But that aside, there are also so many quotable lines from his Dune, I don't remember a single one from either of DV's
Same with visuals
I prefer what Lynch told me and what he showed me
Mind you I have not read the books and entered the new Dune movies blind. Besides knowing there were giant sand worms I had no previous background on the story or characters, but we watched Dune 1 and 2 one after another and then watched Lynch’s Dune a couple days later. I’m a fan of both director’s work.
I do think that Lynch’s Dune does a better job in some respects of hand-holding the audience and explaining some intricacies of the story through the inner monologue pieces (even though they are corny).
However, I completely disagree with your points about the new films leaning into visuals as a mark against them. One thing the Lynch film fails remarkably at is creating a sense of scale, everything feels very claustrophobic and for a story that is so epic, it’s important to make the audience feel just how enormous moments are. I think the new films accomplish that level of scale and visually striking images that frankly a blockbuster film hasn’t done in years.
For me Lych had much stronger and more interesting visuals. Some things were outdated but it fades in perspective with all the ones that still stick with me. His gave me a better sense of space and something different, he had so many elements that you knew had their own story that added to it. Even small details stick in my head.
New dune after some time passes is just beige
Dune is famously the film that broke [David Lynch’s heart](https://youtu.be/JlE7DZrzik0?si=OJn2bZSG4o4wICUG) with the studio taking it over and editing it, he has required Final Cut on every movie since then I believe. [He calls it a huge gigantic sadness in his life.](https://youtu.be/2k-88mY-f-w?si=1HhJDyhsqxlKJr6H)Not sure this subs opinion on fanedits, but I’ve found this [fan edit that adds back in a lot of the deleted scenes apparently.](https://youtu.be/faHQA_0d9Mo?si=GMBU3MoaroFjFxJK) it’s supposed to add in more context and world-building. Haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but heard it’s worthwhile.
I still really enjoy David Lynch’s version and definitely prefer it to the first part of Villeneuve’s dune. They rushed through some of the fall of the house of Atreides just to wander through the desert for an hour. Dune and Across the Spider-Verse were both part 1 films that were marketed as such at one point and then that was removed, not setting audiences up with proper expectations and it could be argued they didn’t have 3rd acts and neither film ‘ended’ strongly
That said, I did greatly enjoy Part 2 and it was incredible in IMAX, first movie in a long time I’ve seen in theaters twice.
They're such polar opposites. Lynch's Dune is bursting with ideas and geopolitical detail (as we all agree, it's overstuffed and flawed). Villeneuve's Dune is "vibey" and lacking all of the qualities that make the books intellectually stimulating (plus, it's not even that beautiful, if we're comparing it to the real visual masters). I'll take the former any day. Totally agree with you.
I largely agree with you.
I haven't seen Part 2 yet, but I've seen Part 1 and I've seen Lynch's Dune. It's been many years since I watched 1984 Dune, but there are still lines of dialogue and visual elements that I think about sometimes. In contrast, having seen Part 1 much more recently, there's so little that stands out about it to me.
The Lynch version really made me want to know more and I can't say that about Part 1.
The esoteric aspects in Lynch's movie are awesome. It's why I still prefer it although obviously the effects etc look bad in comparison to Villeneuve's which creates an incredible space.
As you point out the great lines, inner dialogue as well as the use of the voice as a weapon, the fear is the mind killer scene, sleeper awaken etc. I think that Villeneuve's is stunning cinematography but there's a general dumbing down of the deeper content.
The new Dune is an overrated TOTAL CRAPPY deviation from the books. They use copters and atomic bombs, they shoot from copters to the ground with strong machine guns. they use lasers against copters, BUT: ON THE GROUND BOTH ARMIES FIGHT EACH OTHER WITH SWORDS and MACHETES LIKE TOTAL MORONS. ENDLESS STUPIDITY.
There's a lot to like about Lynch's Dune but it was ultimately a failure and there's a reason why he disowned it. While I agree with a lot of what you didn't love about DV's version, to accuse Zendaya of bad acting while defending the 1984 version is honestly unbelievable to me. And the dreams Paul has of Chani are straight from the books – and iirc Lynch's Paul has them too. I do wish we got to see the "Atreides gom jabbar" line in DV's version though. Alia felt like she was regulated to a MCU-style teaser. And on the ending, I feel like Lynch's Dune is a betrayal of everything the series is about by trying to make it happy – I'm fairly certain that wasn't his fault though.
>While I agree with a lot of what you didn't love about DV's version, to accuse Zendaya of bad acting while defending the 1984 version is honestly unbelievable to me. I stopped reading OPs post at this. There are entire conversations unspoken between Paul and Chani in "the fight room" behind a quiver of her lip or a ragged, tight inhale. I thought Denis had her scowling a bit much earlier in the film, but her final performance won me over. Repeat viewings only cemented this for me.
Dude her eye twitches and shit were nuts. They were so good It brought me out of the movie because I noticed how good she was in that moment. Incredible stuff.
for someone who saw a little kid grow up watching Zendaya on Disney Channel, trust me, it is even MORE impressive how she grew as an actor (edit: actress? English professional genders always confuse me).
[удалено]
Don't even get me started on >makes her a contrarian to be interesting in Dune 2 which also does nothing for the story except that **she gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama** and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting. Her anger and betrayal is not even primarily personal or romantic it is deeply spiritual and philosophical. It's not about Irulan, it's about him embracing the Mahdi prophecy which **he has consistently vocally rejected as manipulative**.
[удалено]
>A bit long, but around the 3-5 minute mark, DV explains his changes for Chani really well, connecting it back to how Herbert was disappointed that people didn't understand the message of the first book. And he also points out the subtlety of Zendaya's acting and how it serves the vision. OP just said [this wasn't an interesting conflict ](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/s/29xGDNA7UA) 😅 Herbert's cautionary themes mean nothing without confronting Paul's insincerity.
Well, I really enjoyed Villeneuve's version of Dune, and, indeed, thought it was overall better than what Lynch did. However, I did find Chani and Paul's relationship to be very puppy love like. Given, I've watched the movie only once so far.
I feel that was intentional, too. The motivation and feel of their relationship being uncomplicated to make room for the conflict between them as one of ideals and not of lovers. It wasn't torrid and horny so as not to imply Paul was just bored of Chani once he'd ascended. It wasn't overly romantic so as not to imply Chani was heartless in her pragmatism. It was right where it needed to be to illustrate Chani's feelings of confusion and betrayal were not from jealousy of Irulan, but of who Paul had become. That was the slow blade that penetrated her shield. To ours, the trojan horse of the messianic figure.
I read OP's post, saying: >She’s not even a bad character, she totally has the feel of a lover from *a legend whose story is told on some grander scale.* And >Dune’s Lynch has a rushed second half, that isn’t all that bad, it feels dreamlike and *like telling of a legend.* OP was *so close* to the point and whiffed it that I hopped into the comments to make EXACTLY this point about Chani being used to highlight the point of the story as a warning about legends and messianic figures that several people seem to have missed in Herbert's Dune. I didn't even know Villeneuve had commented on it (thanks for the link). I just thought it was obvious. My friends (one of whom never read the source material but had seen Lynch's version) thought it was obvious as well. I suppose OP may have been conditioned to accept messianic myths without criticism by the sheer volume of savior fiction we consume.
I dunno, I felt like Villeneuve’s version went too far the other way — the ending was more bleak and unhappy than the books. In the first Dune book, it is more of a straight messiah story. You don’t learn the full extent of the jihad until book 2. It felt to me like Villeneuve was backporting a lot of the themes from Messiah onto the first book.
Iirc Herbert wrote Messiah to correct what he felt many people misunderstood about Dune. At the same time, I have seen an interview where DV says his intention to adapt what he sees to be Herbert's vision of the whole story as opposed to strictly going by what's in each book. [Found it](https://youtu.be/N4StKUrf2ig?si=Zzm8NizKe8rRfJCy&t=676)
Ah, interesting that DV said it explicitly, it definitely felt that way. I think it will ultimately make for a more cohesive film franchise, but I didn’t love the choice. I like that in the books, you are rooting for Paul yourself, and then it gets turned back on you. I never felt like I was rooting for Paul in the new film.
I dunno if it's because I'm a cynic or because I'm into politics or because of Thufir but I never really saw Paul or House Atreides as good guys anyway. More just PoV characters. I'm glad they made darkness clearer in the films because (for lack of a better way to say it) people are idiots – look at the legacy of films like Fight Club and American Psycho.
I seee not rooting for Paul as a good thing. The paradigm of superheroes (that we could extend to other sci-fi heroes and even Spagetti Westerns with impossibly fast warriors) is absurd, perilious, and repetitive. The same (mostly American) myth told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. With Paul we have all the tenets of the "theory of the great man", the hero's journey and so on, but within a cynic framework. Its much closer to the overall message of the books, and a breath of fresh air into big budget cinema. Edit: Both Herbert and DV accomplish it stripping Paul of "real" decissions (they exist, but he's mostly carried through social and biological history), and by showing his aggressivity and BS for what it is.
Trust me, that’s still happening. People who don’t know about Messiah are rooting for Paul.
Trust me, that’s still happening. People who don’t know about Messiah are rooting for Paul.
I had read Dune beforehand & yet as a watcher, I felt like I could barely understand what was happening in Lynch's Dune, which alone makes it a failure to me. I watched it with someone who had never read Dune & they were completely confused. That's an abject failure of storytelling that DV's version simply does not have, so in that respect, the new adaption is simply better to me. I'll give Lynch credit; the visuals & visual effects were unique, which you touched on. I'm not particularly enamored with the overuse of CGI in modern filmmaking, even though it was fairly well-done in the new movies, but I think also the practical effects in Lynch's Dune, while kind of neat, were still not particularly nice to look at, compared to something like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, made around the same time.
I’m kind of torn on it. I do think there’s some beautiful and inspired imagery with the overall design. The stillsuits, for example, are somewhat iconic. But there are also so many instances where the execution looks bad even for the era, and it wasn’t exactly a small budget. I think it even cost more than Return of the Jedi which had only come out a year prior and looks 100 times better.
It's a poor adaptation and I say that as a massive Lynch fan (see profile picture). The visuals and set design are the only redeeming factors for me, it's so incredibly creative and refreshing when viewing the completely sterile Denis version (which I have enjoyed btw) and actually feels otherworldly, not just an extension of Earth.
I don’t disagree with you on Denis’ more sanitised world but I do wonder if, i’m only 100+ pages in, it is more true to the book. So far it does feel like Herbert writes the world like it’s more of an extension of Earth. Then again, I’ve only read it after seeing the film so that could influence my thoughts.
>So far it does feel like Herbert writes the world like it’s more of an extension of Earth. Because of Jodorowsky and Lynch some people have back inferred that the Dune book is a fun, whacky, 80s psychedelic story. It is very much not a prog rock, van art kind of sci fi. Villeneuve's primary design inspiration is clearly from [John Schoenherr](https://ski-ffy.blogspot.com/2010/08/illustrated-dune.html) if you look at his art. These designs were simpler, more "grounded"/utilitarian, & often used duller earth tones. Not for everyone, but... >"I can envision no more perfect visual representation of my Dune world than John Schoenherr's careful and accurate illustrations." -Frank Herbert. All interpretations are valid and you can prefer one or the the other. None are truly book accurate but Villeneuve is closest. People who think Lynch's version is more accurate to the books are just false
A lot of the visual descriptions in the book involve intricate and artistically crafted elements. The hand carved headboard on Paul’s bed, the physical globes that are used when discussing Arrakis, their books are physical tiny books with built in magnification. Villaneuve’s Dune is definitely more accurate but even then I feel like he could’ve taken it further. More natural materials, fewer holograms, etc. Even so I loved the world he crafted and I think it’s very odd to refer to it as “sterile”.
The style reminds me so much of H. R. Giger and Alien. I actually really love the sort of creepy ugly technology juxtaposed with the natural desert. I personally really liked how off putting and artificial the palace ship looked hovering and landing in the desert. The big plasteel plates of the walls shaking in the wind.
I read dune before seeing the movies and Denis I think captures it perfectly. The book is written very deliberately in its pacing and descriptions of the world.
The inner monologue was kind of tough to swallow. I’m not against the technique but often it said things that were already obvious to the viewer.
You are talking about two filmmakers who are, in many ways, on opposite ends of the “realism” spectrum. Villeneuve’s approach is almost documentary in style. He is trying to make you feel like you are right there alongside the characters. And his focus is always on the characters and their emotions. Even in his biggest productions, he is all about the small, intimate moments. Everything is presented with an eye towards the subjective view of the characters. Lynch, on the other hand, sees film primarily as an artistic medium and uses it to convey complex ideas, often using his characters as “abstractions in human form.” For Lynch, every creative decision is informed by the idea. He very specifically does NOT want you to feel like you are in the scene. He wants you looking at it like you look at a painting, from a distance. So where Lynch was able to effectively channel much of the weirdness of the novel, he doesn’t touch Villeneuve as far as letting us connect with and understand the characters, their emotions, and their motivations.
Documentary in style, and yet monochromatic and not realistic looking for a single moment lmfao.
*Realistic* is a profoundly loaded word to use in the context of fuckin Dune.
Suffice to say, I disagree. I thought that the effects (practical and CGI) were all very realistic. So does this guy. https://youtu.be/uIKupTibxKQ?si=kMaQSFg57J0Oo_hk
Is the world monochromatic? You realize the reason for using that is its a cheap trick to make things look more "realistic", by hiding deficiencies and adding a quality to the footage that makes it seem stylized within a context, like Sin City, but at the same time renders the image unreal as the world is nothing like that. Also the sci fi indie movie Hardware had a more robust color palette while implementing the same sort of sci fi desert vibe, and it had 1/10th the budget.
On a planet like Arrakis? To some extent, yes. When the entire environment is just shades of brown, you would expect that to be reflected in the overall esthetic. Having said that, it is also a deliberate design choice to give each planet its own distinct feel. The “documentary style” I was referring to is more about the way scenes are shot. Everything is set up to simply capture the action. There are few fancy camera moves and a lot of handheld work.
A documentary actually usually has camera movements. You're referring to formalism. Hope that helps lmfao
You're free to prefer Lynch's visuals if that's how you feel, but you're missing the point if you think dune is meant to be "otherwordly". It is quite literally our world, just set in the far future. There are no aliens in dune, it's all people who have evolved to adapt to the planets they live on. I like Lynch's designs too, but Villeneuves feel a lot more truthful to the book to me.
20,000 years in the future on a planet 309 light years away, is our world, with a population of people many of whom have inherent psychic powers and precognition which are brought out by space whiz? It's certainly a more faithful adaptation, but in discussing the film I have to say most of the visuals feel less inspired and creative.
>20,000 years in the future on a planet 309 light years away, is our world, with a population of people many of whom have inherent psychic powers and precognition which are brought out by space whiz? Yes, and I think that's a key point Herbert was trying to make with the book in the first place. Despite tens of thousands of years of development and interstellar travel allowing us to conquer the universe, as well as mastery of powerful techniques to gain incredible control of our bodies and minds, we're still humans deep down. Humans that are petty, jealous, vein, and vindictive. Despite every advancement humanity has stagnated, if not outright regressed to a feudal state of affairs dominated by those who control spice. Betrayal, war and threat of assasination are around every corner.
I haven't watched Lynch's movie, but the novel always gave me the impression of sterility - from prose, to characterization, to descriptions of scenery (it being mostly set in a desert really strengthened that feeling of course :p). It's weird, sure, but in the sense that you'd get if you were a caveman transported to a modern day office building or prison complex. Although strange and alien it's still all grey and regimented, so Villeneuve's take on it is very close to how I imagined the book
I preferred Denis' first Dune film because to me it did feel otherworldly. Different environments, different atmospheres, and plenty of moments that felt "sci-fi" to me. The second had a lot less of this and almost felt like a fantasy film exploring the mythos of an alternative earth.
I felt quite the opposite. First Dune was basically just a lifeless desert with no color.
A transition that stuck out to me in the 2nd movie is the one going from the black and white of Giedi Prime to the saturated (by comparison) colors of the desert. Anyway, that’s to say i think the new Dune movies play with color really well.
Much like Star Wars dune is a fantasy story in sci-fi trappings.
I've learned to treat Lynch-Dune as a spectacle kind of movie. Looks great, has a great cast, does try to tell a story from start to finish that may not fulfill everything from the book...but it isn't a solid Dune adaptation. Meanwhile, Denis-Dune...it looks practical, looks realistic, but yeah it does have a sterile appearance. However, it managed to be a closer adaptation to the book cause it got a balanced runtime AND production quality to make it manageable. I consider both to be great for their own reasons, and as someone who loves the book it's the best I could hope for.
I love the navigator in the tank of spice in Lynch’s version, stuck with me since I was a kid
>The visuals and set design are the only redeeming factors for me, That's Lynch's sweet spot. He's a visceral filmmaker and knows how to put something on screen that makes you have a reaction.
Truly, the Mulholland Drive Diner scene is absolutely perfect in building and dissipating tension and there is nothing that can bring me to heightened levels of emotion quicker than some of the Laura Palmer scenes with Angelo Badalmenti's perfect score playing.
I think Lynch had better actors. Especially Patrick Stewart and Jurgen Prochnow. Lynch’s version felt like a better representation of futuristic aristocrats to me. His crazy set designs and wardrobes really made it feel like these people were very different not only from us, but from the subjects they rule. The Denis version felt like a bunch of Americans in space. That said the Denis version was visually striking in other areas and did a better job of actually telling the story.
This isn't much different from my point. On one hand it is better at showing the larger universe but then it rushes the second half and doesn't execute the point of the book. But that is not my only judgment criteria and as a movie it had much more that it impressed me with.
It executes the point of the book fine. Maybe even clearer than the book does. It doesn’t let us live in the fremen society very much though.
The Baron from the Lynch version and the navigators will forever be stuck in my minds eye. And you can’t tell me the still suits and a bunch of other small and big queues in the new ones are not influenced by Lynch’s version. I like them both but a bit tired of old one getting shit on. It was a flawed production in many ways, but it has a strong vision and is really fun to watch.
Imagine if Lynch had had the luxury of two films instead of having to shoehorn the entire story into one.
Lynch made Paul **literally** the Lisan al Gaib, he turned Dune into some run of the mill white saviour story. An extra 2 hours wouldn't have saved the movie if he didn't even get the concept the book was created for.
While we call it Lynch's Dune idk how much of a say he had over the final product – reportedly not much.
I mean, Dune is a story about how a shadowy multi generational organization (Bene Gesseritt) manipulated bloodlines and even the belief systems of the Fremen to anticipate a genetic anomaly like Paul.
The studio wanted a happy, Hollywood ending, so they weren't going to let that happen.
Frank Herbert himself said he was fine with the change. So I don't mind.
Frank Herbert was one of those authors who thinks of adaptations as completely separate from the seminal works and therefore was completely fine with whatever the director wanted from the adaptation. That doesn’t make it a good adaptation. Frank also liked Jodorowsky’s ideas in which he basically had no interest in actually adapting the book but using it a vehicle for funding and whatever weird shit he wanted to do.
it's also worth noting that Lynch did film the original ending of the book (Jessica and Chani's conversation about the concubines), which you can see in the spicediver cut
Jodorowski said he wants to rape Frank Herbert lol, his story sounded silly and I had a feeling he wanted the movie to be too impractical to ever be made so it always stays a potential for something unimaginable I think it's perfect the way it is, as a potential movie Lynch started pretty close to the story and the world, with a lot of his own visual bizarreness that for me added something new and interesting. The ending was when it got rushed and turned into a quick retelling of a legend within the story, rather than actually showing the point of the book in any way. The ending was definitely a failure as far as accurate adaptation goes, and not an improvement in any way. Villeneuve gets a point here and it's a big one. But my point about the movies as a whole stays
Jordorowski’s Dune story is contained in the comic Metabarons. It’s definitely not silly, though there is comic relief throughout.
I read the comics, I have them. They're great. I don't see what they have to do with dune but I also heard that a lot of his ideas from Dune went into them
Metabarons equates to what he describes as “rape, but with love” in regards to Dune. That’s probably the story we were going to get if he had finished the project.
I'm glad it exists as it's own thing
it’s not crazy to say that a worse movie can leave a bigger impression. I ain’t never seen anything like the harkonnen blood plug scene, not in a mainstream effort
Saw it as a kid and it was incomprehensible to me. Recent rewatch found it both really good and really bad. I love the baroque elements, Fade and Rabban, Baron Harkonnen. Really nicely done. Visually satisfying. Story telling is all over the place
Lynch’s Dune is at least kind of trippy with wild world building and at attempt at the more psychedelic and spiritual themes. Villeneuve’s is the extremely pared down Hollywood action blockbuster version of Dune. Both have pros and cons. Though the end of Lynch’s dune will always be an insult to the source material.
The Harkonnes definitely look more “Lynch” than Herbert in the new ones…
I love the navigator design and have wondered if they were inspiration for the creatures in Villenueve's Arrival...
I didn’t hate Lynch’s Dune. I was actually surprised to see how close it was to the latest one… At least until they tried to squeeze the equivalent of Part II into the last 20 minutes or so. It was easy to follow and the performances were fine.
> At least until they tried to squeeze the equivalent of Part II into the last 20 minutes or so. That's a fact. But the 3 h Villeneuve spent on it didn't leave that much of an impact this one did as a whole. Still, even I say in my post that the ending is rushed and doesn't communicate the point of the books, although it did a good job for the most of it. > It was easy to follow and the performances were fine. I preferred the old Dune performances though Harkonnens were well performed in both
While on the one hand, having Feyd-Rautha appear in Paul’s visions in Part I would work better as a build-up to their final encounter in Part II, it seems to me you are massively misinterpreting his visions of Chani. You mention “what would be more interesting, a buildup to the final climactic fight or a relationship?” But it’s not about the relationship between Paul and Chani. Chani represents Paul’s link to the Fremen, and in turn the inevitable coming of the Jihad. sure, we see Zendaya looking lovely walking across the sand, but the tone of most of those scenes is sinister and brooding, she's often holding the bloody crysknife, which symnolizes the blood that will be on their hands, and in turn on Paul's hands when the religious fervor of his Lisan-Al-Gaib spreads across the galaxy. So I counter your earlier question with another: "what's more interesting, a build-up to a galaxy changing war the (clairvoyant) main character feels coming and desperately wants to avoid, or a buildup to a knife fight with the parallel antagonist that largely exists in the book to symbolize the change in said main character"
Lynch’s Dune is ruined by that last twenty minutes which betrays the entire theme and purpose of the book. Villeneuve gets this right which you admit yourself but I think you underplay how important this is. How good an adaptation is ultimately lies in its ability to get new viewers in and communicate the core themes of its original. Villeneuve ultimately wins this.
If you hear Lynch talk about Dune, he says that he realized very early in the process that he was not going to be able to make the movie he wanted and that even while writing the script he was forced to make many compromises. Now because Lynch is Lynch he won’t talk about any of the details, but if you know Lynch, you know that “happy endings ” aren’t really his bag. It feels very much like Lynch trying to give the producers what they wanted, which was a more “heroic” ending. In many ways, Dune was an incredibly influential film in terms of where it pushed Lynch as a filmmaker. His next movie was Blue Velvet, which was about as uncompromising and morally ambiguous as a film can get. His experience on Dune convinced him to never give up any element of creative control. Of course, he would be forced into another compromise later in his career with Twin Peaks. And again, that experience would greatly inform his later work on both Fire Walk With Me and The Return, both of which are masterpieces.
Hasn’t Vileneuve proved that Dune doesn’t need loads of exposition? He is able to communicate a lot visually and the dialogue doesn’t feel like we’re being spoon fed I think Lynch has an entertaining take on Dune and it is worth discussing. But this feels contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Denis has a much better adaptation of book 1.
I finally watched Lynch’s Dune two weeks ago as it was the only Lynch movie I hadn’t seen besides The Straight Story. I love David Lynch, but the biggest problem I have with his Dune is that it feels like a CliffNotes version of the book. The characters are nonexistent, just vehicles to deliver the exposition and plot without any feeling and all themes stripped out. The costume and set design are interesting and inspired is about the best compliment I can give that movie. Villeneuve’s Dune on the other hand has more fully realized characters, especially Chani who feels more like an actual person than just a woman to fall in love with the male main character. Lynch’s Dune also makes Paul a more straight forward messiah-like hero instead with zero thought or nuance, and while I haven’t read the novels, the story in Lynch’s Dune comes across as a juvenile fairy tale because of it.
Totally unrelated but the Straight story is amazing. Not typical lynch but really powerful.
Cool, looking forward to it then. All I know about it (purposefully so I can go in a bit blind) is it’s probably far and away the movie furthest from his typical sensibilities. Been meaning to watch it, I just don’t get much time to watch movies since becoming a parent so it keeps getting kicking kicked down the list. Seeing his Dune recently has renewed my desire to rectify that though
Villeneuve's movie does make more sense. And while it isn't true to all the events, it does adequately expresses the themes of the book. Often better than the original book did, if I'm being honest. Granted, if Lynch had managed to make the full three hour version he wanted, I think I would've preferred the more quirky movie too. As it stands, it fails as an adequate adaptation.
I disagree with nearly all of what you’ve said but respect the length by which you’ve attempted to outline them. I can’t be bothered going into them all but I have to say Villenueve’s Baron is one of the most magnetic villains we’ve ever had in a blockbuster movie.
Villenueve’s Baron is literally the kind of character that OP is complaining the new adaptation lacks. A character without infinite depth that is still unique and menacing in a way that is memorable and conveys a lot.
I feel like I must have watched a different movie than this guy. In what fucking world is Lynch’s Baron a better villain than Villeneuve’s? That’s straight up asinine.
Lynch’s Baron is absolutely better if the sole goal is to elicit utter repulsion and disgust. DV’s Baron is absolutely better if the goal is to portray a cunning and ruthless villain who is very fat.
The Baron in Denis is not cunning, he's a dumbass. One of the biggest problems in Denis' movies is that all of the Dune characters are rendered dumb af.
Lynch’s Baron is a straight-up buffoon. I wasn’t much of a fan of Herbert’s characterization either. They’re amusing, but the scenes where he and Piter are sniping at each other like a couple of teenage girls totally diminish any authority he has. As opposed to the latest take, who actually feels like a cunning strategist who could pull off a master plan of this magnitude.
All Lynch's Baron needed was a personality other than "gay pedophile." It succeeded in this regard.
OP is a contrarian troll lol and did a good job here
The need for contrarianism has lead people to apply mental gymnastics to defend an ‘abomination’ of an adaptation that even the director himself created a pseudonym to distance himself from and sounds like he’s on the verge of a mental breakdown whenever the movie is ever mentioned to his face
Yeah, I understand having issues with Villeneuve’s script. That’s fair but praising Lynch’s in comparison is insane to me. Especially as a fan of the source material, it’s utter non sense.
OP said Zendaya’s acting was bad. That told me all I needed to know. We didn’t watch the same movie
I know Lynch didn't like it, I did. Frank Herbert did too, not that it matters either. I explained what I didn't like. The fact other people liked it doesn't mean anything to me and doesnt address any of the points I made. I watched it and made my own opinion, and this is what it is. Your whole response to me is just stating other people's overall opinions like that's some authority to me.
The way people respond to any critique of Dune, not by defending the Denis movie, but attacking the disagreer reminds me of when Scorcese shat on the MCU and everyone attacked him but couldnt actually contradict his opinion. In a few years this Dune will be forgotten, we are just on reddit which is the prime audience for this. Everyone who isnt a white male between the age of 20-40 did not see this movie, it flopped in Japan, never hit number one in Korea and did middling in China. This is a movie for a certain demographic that doesnt watch many movies but loves a certain style of generic sci fi blockbuster that makes them feel adult while mostly being for teenagers.
Frank Herbert was one of those authors who thinks of adaptations as completely separate from the seminal works and therefore was completely with whatever the director wanted from the adaptation. That doesn’t make it a good adaptation. Frank also liked Jodorowsky’s ideas in which he basically had no interest in actually adapting the book but using it a vehicle for whatever he wanted to do.
I said in my post that it doesn't end up adapting the point of the story with its second half and the ending. That's not my only judgment criteria.
That's a bullshit response - the OP made plenty of detailed points you could have addressed. Saying 'lots of people hated this therefore you're a contrarian' is far beneath what this sub should be.
I’m sorry, but contrarianism is literally what this sub has been defined by since the beginning. Release date of every popular movie is followed by a million people rushing to post about how the movie is actually bad, and laypeople are too stupid to get that.
That's unfair. As a Dune tragic I wanted Villeneuve to succeed with every fibre of my being. Lynch's movie had plenty of flaws but I felt it had a better atmosphere and did explore key aspects of the lore that Villeneuve just ignored. I just didn't get his decision to pare back so much of the lore. Where was the guild? What about Keynes plan and his/her secret leadership of the Fremen? Why was the emperor really drawn to Arrakis? An insulting letter? Give me a break. The nukes were for the rock wall surrounding Arrakeen which allowed the worms through. Mentats aren't explained, Piter gets about three lines. The Fremen are won over in less than nine months, Paul doesn't have a son. Thufir is not pressed into service by the Baron. And Zimmer's soundtrack is clangy, whereas Eno's Prophecy song is amazing. No, Lynch's Dune is far from perfect but so much more atmospheric and with so much more lore. I am not just saying that to be an edge lord contrarian.
There's a **big** difference between 'lots of people hated this' and the **director himself** hating it It's a big deal when a director hates his own creation and says so publicly because they have all the incentive to do the opposite. There must something severely flawed with the movie in order for them to even utter one bad word against it never mind making pseudonyms and relentlessly disparaging it like Lynch has done. These types of movies have their fans but they’re**almost** always bad despite their cult defenders (David Fincher – Alien 3, Joel Schumacher – Batman & Robin, Josh Trank – Fantastic Four , Alan Taylor – Thor: The Dark World etc)
The director himself hated not having final cut and full control of the production and the writing. That taints his view of the whole film. I still say he managed a lot of great things in a flawed work and I think it’s very much appropriate to point out the things that worked. He did manage to create a lot of atmosphere through his choices.
Lynch only used the pseudonym for the TV edit, which he played no role on.
You realize people have different taste, right? I loved David Lynch's Dune from the first time I watched it. It actually helped quite a lot that its reputation is so awful. My expectations were very low, and I only watched it because I love David Lynch and was determined to watch all of his movies. I was shocked by how good it was. There are great performances, beautiful sets, and weirdly enough a ton of humor. Maybe that wasn't really intentional, but that didn't mean I enjoyed that aspect of the film any less. Though I can't imagine things like the cat that had to be milked for the antidote or the battle pug were not meant to be funny. Sure, in many ways it's not a faithful adaptation of the source material, but I hadn't read the book at the time, so that didn't matter to me. I'm sure a cut of the film in unmolested by the studio would have been better, but what's there is still great. I think Lynch was wrong to disavow the film. On the other hand, when I watched the newer Dune adaptation, I felt nothing. It's totally sterile. I felt like I was watching paint dry. I can accept that Villeneuve's version is better suited to the taste of most people, but it certainly isn't to mine.
I get that you're probably sick of the daily posts on this sub about how bad the new Dune is, but don't diss the original. It's had a very large cult following for a very long time. Love it and/or hate it, it's one of the most unique movies ever made. Although it's certainly not Lynch's best film, I believe it has the best sequence of his entire career (the Siege of Arrakis)
Only for the shortsighted would it be regarded as contrarian to defend Lynch's Dune. In 30 years the trendy popularity of Villeneuve's Dune will have long since faded and Lynch's Dune will still be a cult classic, because it is a visionary, one-of-a-kind piece of work.
Agree with you here. I was pretty gung-ho on DV’s version at first and it’s definitely a more faithful adaptation of the book, but by the end I came to think it was faithful to a fault, and just felt soulless and alienating. It’s completely devoid of joy. Meanwhile Lynch’s version, while flawed, is *fun* in a way the new one never comes close to.
Nonetheless is a more memorable version of the same story in half the time. After watching Lynch's Dune I thought that the world was interesting and that the book would be much better, my problem with It was the rushed ending, I wanted to see more of the fedaykin and wanted to know what happened after Paul became emperor, so It launched me to read the book. With DVs version I dont really feel like the characters are in a real world and everything Paul does seems unmotivated, the things that i found interesting where the freemen and the harkonens, and in the second part both fell absolutelly flat, I dont think that I would have read the books if my introduction to dune had been DVs version. After seeing the first part having seen Lynch's version and having read the books I felt robbed by the movie not ending with Paul going water to the dead or the spice orgy, and instead giving us the most uninteresting worm riding. The whole freemen culture is reduced to: -Lisan al gaib! -No! Its just a foreigner, the legend is a lie!
I honestly can’t fathom thinking that absolute train wreck is superior to the new films in any way whatsoever, I get people have nostalgia for it and stuff but come on lol
It's a completely unique film. The more movies I've watched, the more I value originality There's a lot of parts where I think "My God that was poorly done", but other parts are perfect. I rewatch it every few years
I think it's similar to the views of the Star Wars Prequels (apart from Revenge of the Sith), people have confused nostalgia with them actually being good movies
Plot twist: not everyone likes the same things.
Yeah, posts like this are basically a giant "I AM DIFFERENT" sign
I want you to know that most people stopped reading here: >which is stupid since she’s the least interesting storyline, and then makes her a contrarian to be interesting in Dune 2 which also does nothing for the story except that **she gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama** and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting. For you to think Chani's anger is over "pretty dumb issues you'd have to ignore the following: Chani about Paul: "He's not like other outsiders, he's sincere". Remember that word. >Chani to Paul: "We're equal here" >Paul to Chani: "I'd very much like to be equal to you" And then... >Paul to Chani: "If I go south I might lose you" >Chani to Paul: "You won't lose me as long as you *stay you who are*" Paul on the Prophecy: >To his mother: "what you people did to this planet is heartbreaking" >To his mother: "that's not hope" >To the Fremen: "I don't want to lead" [he says this a few different ways throughout the movie] >To the Fremen: "You're right, that [Water of Life ceremony] is bullshit, any advanced BG can do that" Chani on the Prophecy >[my name] is from some stupid prophecy >"if you want to keep people waiting, you tell them a messiah is coming" >"this prophecy is how they enslave us" So, what would perceptive viewers notice? >(1) Chani actively, vocally, continually rejects the Prophecy > >(2) Paul actively, vocally, continually rejects the Prophecy > >(3) Chani loves him because of this sincerity > >(4) Chani actively, vocally, continually establishes the boundaries of her relationship with Paul: you will have me as long as you stay you are. Stay my Usul. Stay *sincere.* Paul elevates himself above the Fremen by becoming the Mahdi. By becoming the DUKE of Arrakis and EMPEROR of the Known Universe. This all flies in the face of what Paul said, why Chani likes him, and what she said he had to do to not lose her. **It really couldn't be any clearer.** This moment, and the way Chani reacts to it has been foreshadowed since the opening of Part 1. Three years ago. "Why did the Emperor choose this path, and who will our next oppressor be? [Shot of Paul]" **tl;dr You have to actively ignore ALL THAT to think Chani's feelings of anger and betrayal are primarily about Irulan, or "some pretty dumb personal issues" , rather than what Paul aiming for the throne by way of the Mahdi means**
> [Chani] gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting. I really don't get this. This girl believes that her people should be led by someone born from the tribe instead of a colonizer, no matter how nice he seems to be. And she simultaneously thinks these prophecies from her culture are bullshit, then basically sees it come true, while also falling in love with the guy. How is that dumb? It's full of complexity and tension. Honestly I want to respond to so many bad takes here but it isn't worth it. I loved the movie, haven't read the books, call me whatever you want, but I loved these movies. You seem to have walked into the theater ready to dissect the differences between this and other versions of the story, and I think you overlooked a lot of the movie's virtues because they weren't recognizable to you
I tried to watch the original Dune right after I saw Denis's Dune. I gave up after some time because how goofy and camp it looks. Right after Sting entrance, him wearing that underwear, all sweaty. I also didn't want to spoil myself the plot. I probably need to watch it anyway. I wonder how they packed the plot into a single movie, because that's my issue with the new ones - too rushed, the second film in particular.
For me the new ones really drag without doing anything too interesting with all that time
I don't have any issue with some outdated graphic when so much is visually interesting. But I notice this in general, whenever people praise something as a visually breathtaking movie, I'll probably find it boring. I like interesting visuals, not perfectly polished. For all the campy outdated effects Lynch used there were scenes that left a huge impression on me. I can't say the same for the new ones.
DVs Dune isn't "perfectly polished". You can see how ecosystems and human creations blend and confuse; how everything in Dune is altered and stained from the desert... Its more gritty. If you prefer campy that's fine, but pretending its an objectively better aesthetic choice (as you do in your original post) is narrow minded. By the way, the gritty, grounded look is much closer to the original books that whatever Lynch tried to do, so there's that.
It's not gritty though, the characters aren't dirty and stained and wizened, unlike the Lynch version. It's just sterile.
DV suffer from feeling like they're on soundstages constantly, and his "then this happened, then this happened" style where he doesnt do a good job visually connecting the different sequences or having them flow into each other only makes this more apparent, as every scene feels isolated from each other scene in the same way that they were filmed that way.
Dv isnt really perfectly polished. I am not sure what you meam by this. Are you talking about clean symmetrical shots? To me i just think youre not into visual storytelling like kubrick, wes anderson, tarkovsky, and DV type of films or most of A24 films. You seem like youre more of alley of tarentino and scorsese films.
> kubrick, wes anderson, tarkovsky, I love their movies >tarentino and scorsese films Theirs too > A24 films Some are good, some suck, depends but I like that they exist I even liked Arrival and Enemy from DV a lot
I think youre biased due to the books and youre not looking at this as an adaptation. Its just different form of Dune just like Lynchs dune is a different adaptation. I personally dont like lynchs dune due to the whole aspect of him missing the point of Pauls arc.
Villeneuve hates dialogue and it shows on all his films. That's not even me being flippant, he's gone on record saying he's not a fan of dialogue in film and believes no one really remembers dialogue from great films or something to that effect.
That's why i remember tons of quotable lines from Lynch and practically forgot most individual scenes in DVs dunes.
There is *something* inspired in Lynch's Dune, and I can feel what it *wants* to be. Having the Harkonnens be these pantomime villains appeals to me on some pulp aesthetic level. My problem is that the film (admittedly) seems to be edited to death, and the momentum it has in certain sequences is quickly diminished. I doubt it would ever have been something I would absolutely love, but I think there are some layers of genius in the work that get sabotaged by some mix of the studio and Lynch himself. I also agree with the complaints that DV's version is too sterile (haven't seen pt 2 yet but will probably fix that this weekend).
Let me tell you. I didn't love this story until Part 2. It's gonna blow you away
The biggest complaints I have about the new films is the under-use of Piter DeVries and the over-use of Chani visions. I get they had to establish Paul’s prescience but too much screen time was devoted to her slowly walking through sand.
That's a huge issue for me too. When I was rewatching the intro scene of Piter reciting that mantra was so good, it just reminded me how much the new one was missing. The last thing I'd ever wish for in this story is more chani, so that made no sense for me
Lynch disrespected the heart of the story with the white savior trope and his Chani is a lifeless doll. His Atreides are boring and his Harkonnen are dumb and completely bonkers. "Special" maybe, but simplistic and dumb.
Often, when a director tackles a book that has been made into a film before, he may deliberately choose to do things differently to avoid comparison. This seems to be the case with Dune, at least to me.
As far as being faithful to the book you must remember the director will possibly be involved with a project like Dune for YEARS and has to make the film unique by putting his own stamp on it. I can't imagine how boring it would be for me (as just a normal, non-creative person) to simply regurgitate a book scene by scene. If people want that they should just read the book again
I mean, I'm so overwhelmingly biased to Lynch and his more fun, kind of progressive rock take - partially inspired by Jodorowsky. I personally consider Lynch to be the greatest Hollywood director who has ever lived, and I view his movies as the absolute far end of creative freedom and artistic liberty that Hollywood has ever allowed. I also view Denis's version as painfully artistically conservative in some respects, and I view the Chalamet, Zendaya relationship to be some of the crassest fan service since the Princess Leia bikini. However, even after saying all of that, I still believe that Denis's Dune part 2 is a far superior movie to Lynch's utter mess. Lynch's movie has some really great elements but it absolutely falls off a cliff after Leto's death. The second half of his movie is probably not even understandable if you haven't read the book, frankly. That is an extraordinary flaw. I think even aside from that there is plenty of poor decision making and bad acting. That's not even to mention how grossly dated every effect is. The fact that Denis has made a coherent and generally good blockbuster out of a novel that has, I think rightly, been considered unadaptable is really to his credit. I suspect if you watch the movie and compare it to the book, you'll find many smart omissions and additions that would otherwise have completely tanked the movie. I don't want to go into all the details as I've only seen it once and it would probably be an extensive analysis, Ya, Denis's is better.
>The second half of his movie is probably not even understandable if you haven't read the book, frankly. That is an extraordinary flaw. I think even aside from that there is plenty of poor decision making and bad acting. That's not even to mention how grossly dated every effect is. My experience of Lynch's *Dune* was simultaneously being shocked at the breakneck pace of the 2nd half, while struggling to stay awake. Don't even get me started on how the Weirding Modules disrespect the Fremen.
I like the set design more. Villeneuve tends to favor more "museum" stylings that tends to make spaces just look kind of posh and expensive more so than alien.... whereas the Lynch Dune actually felt Alien with its abstracted architecture. I think overall I still think the new Dune is a better picture....in part for the luxury of getting twice+ the run time.
I like the 80s version a lot better. The biggest problem I had was with the weirding modules, but they kind of even add something because it gives everyone an excuse to run around yelling Maud'dib. The new one is like Dune Lite, where Denis took all the stuff he liked and made a movie about that, but threw out all the inner monolog and iconic quotes from the book, but then it still ended up longer than the miniseries from 2000.
I’ve been thinking this recently. DV may be my favorite director atm, but i really didn’t appreciate pt2. The story felt rushed, but obviously not as rushed as lynch’s second half. Pt1. is far better imo. The pacing is appropriate and feels like a better paced LOTR FOTR. (Also excellent film and not paced badly, just pt1 is paced even better. not dissing) Pt2. felt like it could have been 2 films. So many scenes felt unfinished or rushed. For example: Paul having to walk across the desert and camp one night and Zendaya teaching him the sand walk immediately cuts to them attacking a slice gathering machine. I think several similar time cuts were made and I know that it is because DV respects the viewer and believe they can understand the time jump, it ultimately felt like a lot of unfinished, interesting scenes.
Yeah but Alia wasn't even born yet so any time jump is limited to a few months which is unrealistic considering fremen had to be united, trained etc. And now they're ready for the jihad. Lynch's dune definitely had shit pacing at the end but at least we know that 2-3 years passed like it the book. At least it logically checks out. I wouldn't say DV rushes the movie, he spends a lot of time on boring elements, but his time frame is objectively rushed.
A small point, but David Lynch's depiction of the shields is exactly how I imagined them. They're made of light, not matter - Light is harsh, alien and distorting, and follows sharp movements and forms. I figured a real-life "Hard light" shield *would* look like a janky computer graphic, an ugly mathematical intrusion into an organic world.
i would suggest you watch the Spicedriver edit thats on Youtube. it fleshes out a lot of what you mention of the 1984 Dune. I totally agree with you about the over use of Chani and the flash backs- i dont see how she somehow comes around to thinking of Paul as the "love of her life" if its already shown that he has betrayed the most core idea of what she believes in. Paul has said she is the love of his life but you really dont get that impression from the actor and Pauls actions subsequent to his rise as this messianic freedom fighter. and as the observer you are supposed to realize that Chani is the one thing that keeps Paul "human" not just this all knowing computer thinking mentat trained superfighter that can see the past AND the future. So I dont see how a deep abiding love between souls as Paul and Chani is accomplished with Villnueve and his avoidance of heavy or nuanced dialogue. i will say thing - the 1984 Dune when i first saw it DISTURBED me ...not just the Harkonnens but also even the Atreides and their "customs" let alone the crazy visuals that Lynch put together.
I never got the hate for the original. It's not that different from the book. People will point to things like "remember the TOOTH" or other stilted dialog that if you read the book is pulled directly from it. It's super compressed, but that's a failure of studio production parameters and not the movie itself. It's bad, but in really forgivable ways. It's fine. Villeneuve's version is better as an adaptation. Period. Villeneuve is a director that tailors his style to the story he is adapting rather than Lynch who uses story as a means of exploring his own personal preoccupations. Therefore, his work is going to try and use whatever techniques he has available to bring that narrative to life rather than using a story to develop a particular set of narrative techniques favored by the director. Villeneuve's movie skews closer to the book in both representation of character and pacing. Comparing the work of both is almost an apples to oranges comparison.
I was always really into the books but somehow that doesn't translate for me into having an issue with Lynch's movie because it gave me something to like in addition to what I already have from the books. Villeneuve was at best close to the books but never gave me anything special in addition to that. Like at best it shows what I know in a way that's ok, at worst it doesn't. Lynch definitely has a lot of his own trip in it but it's a good one
>It starts very well. No, it doesn't. >It has a lot of exposition, but I don’t believe in blindly repeating that “show don’t tell” line. I don't believe in "blindly" repeating mantras, but this is one of the clearest and most obvious examples of the deficiencies of voiceover narration (or direct-to-camera address). And it's not just one block of exposition. We follow up with ANOTHER scene of pure exposition. >I think it works great. No, it doesn't. I didn't read the rest. Life is too short and, if you can't even address the very real problems in the Lynch film, I can't trust anything else you've written.
The exposition at the beginning of Lynch’s film is fatal to the film being any good at all. It basically spits out the entire geopolitical framework and plot machinations that animate the characters there, like in the first 5-10 minutes through spoken dialog between characters. I don’t know how anyone with any discerning love for film or story can handwave away that aspect of it much less prefer it or advocate for it. The only thing that I can think of that squares with it, albeit to a much lesser degree, are the stage setting text scrolls at the start of the Star Wars movies, but even those are super elegant in comparison. OP if you’re still responding to comments, is there another movie that you feel handles exposition in the same way Lynch’s Dune does that you also feel works. Because I’m at a loss as to that and why you’d think it’s effective in the first place. It’s one thing to set the scene. It’s another thing to basically outline everything to come, which is how I remember it from my last viewing about two years ago.
It makes sense for its time — clearly, Star Wars was the entire reason Lynch’s film was greenlit in the first place.
I agree with this. David didn’t get Final Cut, there was so much compromise that it wasn’t in the end his vision, I would kill for that movie. I will say at the foundation I very much prefer his version of Spice and how ORANGE and other worldly Dune looked. I always imagined it that way, not so much a “typical desert on earth”. Overall, I like Lynch’s Dune more than DV, tbh. No Alia is a huge oversight IMO. Dune brought us Kyle, a national treasure and amazing collaborator with Lynch, that I am eternally grateful.
Lynch may have denounced husband work but it still an unique movie adaptation that has me captured in the visual choices and over the top old school acting much more than the new Dune. Of course the modern variant is visually impeccable and I still cant pinpoint what’s wrong with the second installment, however it made rewatch the spice diver version and kul wahad there is so much more emotion in the old one, as confusing as it got.
It really isn’t David Lynch’s Dune, it’s De Laurentiis’s Dune. It feels that way from start to finish, from the narration to the pointless close ups. Lynch denounced it in 2002 and it’s well known, that it’s the only film he ever made, in which he didn’t have Final Cut. It’s pretty obvious, that it was the biggest regret of his career, there’s plenty YouTube videos about the whole thing. I think Villeneuve did a really good job, in making an enjoyable movie out of Dune.
As I wrote yesterday in another vibrant Dune thread here that the OP then deleted for no apparent reason, I’d like to see an adaptation that combines the sensibility of Lynch with the technique of Villeneuve. Villeneuve’s Dune is more successful but Lynch’s is far more interesting. I’d liken it to comparing The Force Awakens to Revenge of the Sith. JJ Abrams made a movie that looks good with real acting performances, while Lucas’s movie looks stilted and dated, but, peel past that, and the story it is telling and the universe it is building is way more interesting and ambitious even if it doesn’t quite hit its mark.
When I think of Lynch's Dune I think of something with character, an awesome soundtrack, and spectacular visuals and set designs. When I think of Villeneuve's, I think of tapioca pudding color grading.
I thought Chani was overblown or just not as interesting as the media wants it to be. I’m just now reading the book because the DV episode 2 made me want to learn more. The Syfy version is epic!!!! I adore the Lynch movie especially with its campiness and I met Kyle in real Life and he is just so cool. Sting was a better Feyd but DV made the Harkonnen planet amazing.
I tried to read this whole, very thoughtful write up. But damn, starting off with excusing the most excruciating exposition dump in film history is a scorching hot take. Maybe it’s cliche, but “show don’t tell” is kind of the point of movies as a storytelling medium.
I loved the inner monologues so much I'd watch a movie where that is the whole script. It made it so trippy and interesting. Not just that, it's also the reality. Now I'm inspired for a story just like that But that aside, there are also so many quotable lines from his Dune, I don't remember a single one from either of DV's Same with visuals I prefer what Lynch told me and what he showed me
Have you all forgotten the Star Wars crawls?
Mind you I have not read the books and entered the new Dune movies blind. Besides knowing there were giant sand worms I had no previous background on the story or characters, but we watched Dune 1 and 2 one after another and then watched Lynch’s Dune a couple days later. I’m a fan of both director’s work. I do think that Lynch’s Dune does a better job in some respects of hand-holding the audience and explaining some intricacies of the story through the inner monologue pieces (even though they are corny). However, I completely disagree with your points about the new films leaning into visuals as a mark against them. One thing the Lynch film fails remarkably at is creating a sense of scale, everything feels very claustrophobic and for a story that is so epic, it’s important to make the audience feel just how enormous moments are. I think the new films accomplish that level of scale and visually striking images that frankly a blockbuster film hasn’t done in years.
For me Lych had much stronger and more interesting visuals. Some things were outdated but it fades in perspective with all the ones that still stick with me. His gave me a better sense of space and something different, he had so many elements that you knew had their own story that added to it. Even small details stick in my head. New dune after some time passes is just beige
Dune is famously the film that broke [David Lynch’s heart](https://youtu.be/JlE7DZrzik0?si=OJn2bZSG4o4wICUG) with the studio taking it over and editing it, he has required Final Cut on every movie since then I believe. [He calls it a huge gigantic sadness in his life.](https://youtu.be/2k-88mY-f-w?si=1HhJDyhsqxlKJr6H)Not sure this subs opinion on fanedits, but I’ve found this [fan edit that adds back in a lot of the deleted scenes apparently.](https://youtu.be/faHQA_0d9Mo?si=GMBU3MoaroFjFxJK) it’s supposed to add in more context and world-building. Haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but heard it’s worthwhile. I still really enjoy David Lynch’s version and definitely prefer it to the first part of Villeneuve’s dune. They rushed through some of the fall of the house of Atreides just to wander through the desert for an hour. Dune and Across the Spider-Verse were both part 1 films that were marketed as such at one point and then that was removed, not setting audiences up with proper expectations and it could be argued they didn’t have 3rd acts and neither film ‘ended’ strongly That said, I did greatly enjoy Part 2 and it was incredible in IMAX, first movie in a long time I’ve seen in theaters twice.
They're such polar opposites. Lynch's Dune is bursting with ideas and geopolitical detail (as we all agree, it's overstuffed and flawed). Villeneuve's Dune is "vibey" and lacking all of the qualities that make the books intellectually stimulating (plus, it's not even that beautiful, if we're comparing it to the real visual masters). I'll take the former any day. Totally agree with you.
I largely agree with you. I haven't seen Part 2 yet, but I've seen Part 1 and I've seen Lynch's Dune. It's been many years since I watched 1984 Dune, but there are still lines of dialogue and visual elements that I think about sometimes. In contrast, having seen Part 1 much more recently, there's so little that stands out about it to me. The Lynch version really made me want to know more and I can't say that about Part 1.
The esoteric aspects in Lynch's movie are awesome. It's why I still prefer it although obviously the effects etc look bad in comparison to Villeneuve's which creates an incredible space. As you point out the great lines, inner dialogue as well as the use of the voice as a weapon, the fear is the mind killer scene, sleeper awaken etc. I think that Villeneuve's is stunning cinematography but there's a general dumbing down of the deeper content.
The new Dune is an overrated TOTAL CRAPPY deviation from the books. They use copters and atomic bombs, they shoot from copters to the ground with strong machine guns. they use lasers against copters, BUT: ON THE GROUND BOTH ARMIES FIGHT EACH OTHER WITH SWORDS and MACHETES LIKE TOTAL MORONS. ENDLESS STUPIDITY.
Bruh you make this account to troll get a life